NationStates Jolt Archive

Sorry if this has posted before. John Howard seems to be emulating the shrub's current mangling of the separation of church and state with his new plan to pay 90 million for putting chaplains in schools, both private and public.

Under the plan, public and private schools will be ableto apply for a grant of as much as $20,000 a year to employ a chaplain.

The Federal Government wants to encourage schools to spend more time developing the ethical and spiritual health of students.

Although the chaplains will not necessarily be required to have a religious background, they will be expected to provide religious support.

They will also be required to work with school counsellors in supporting students dealing with issues such as a family break-up or the death of a fellow student.

The program will leave it up to individual schools to decide whether to employ a chaplain on a part-time or a full-time basis.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,20662286-5006010,00.html

Damn religious right. Must we do everything America does?

Sorry if this has posted before. John Howard seems to be emulating the shrub's current mangling of the separation of church and state with his new plan to pay 90 million for putting chaplains in schools, both private and public.



http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,20662286-5006010,00.html

Damn religious right. Must we do everything America does?

You know you're just like Georgia: The place the Brits sent their criminals.

Antidisestablishmentarianism annoys me.

The schools are not required to employ a chaplain.


I'm not sure if there is a PTSA (Parent-Teacher-Student Association) in most of the Austrailian schools, but in the states, they are powerful enough to force a change if they school tries to get a chaplain and they don't want one.

are these non-denominational chaplains?

We have no separation of church and state here and never have, at least not in the American sense. Considering how well the American approach to that separation is working for them at the moment, I'm glad that we don't.

That being said, if there was one place I wish a more rigid wall of separation would be maintained, it is in our public schools. I have no particular problem with bringing in religious counselors if there is a traumatic event and students specifically request a cleric, you could even pay them a bit for their trouble (though one would think they'd do it for free if they were so pious.) However, having a permanent cleric on staff is tantamount to having a government priest in the school and I find that unacceptable. Especially in schools with a students of different religious background, if the school chooses to have a chaplain, they will be alienating students of the other religions.

I don't see what is wrong with secular counselors and I would argue that in the public education system they are far more appropriate as permanent staff. This is, however, just another in a growing line of hard conservative ideological legislation that the sinking government ship is pushing through before they go under at next year's election.

*groans*

Why on earth did you re-elect Howard?

*groans*

Why on earth did you re-elect Howard?

For the same reason we re-elected Bush - the alternative was worse.

As Revasser said, there's no separation of church and state in Australia. The state church is the Church of England, and I believe government oaths must be sworn on the bible (though they may have changed this).

Can't lose what they never had.

Jedi Chaplains! YAY! :D

*groans*

Why on earth did you re-elect Howard?

Since I certainly didn't, I think "why did they re-elect Howard" is a more pertinent question, since i'm at a loss to answer it myself.

Jedi Chaplains! YAY! :D
Or FSM chaplains! Ah, the possibilities. Perhaps some good can come of this.

? I think we do have some separation of church and state, although not as set in stone as in the USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#Australia
Since the founding of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901, religious freedom has been guaranteed and state religion has been outlawed. Section 116 of the Australian Constitution says:

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. [1]

Or FSM chaplains! Ah, the possibilities. Perhaps some good can come of this.

? I think we do have some separation of church and state, although not as set in stone as in the USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#Australia

Dude, that's the Australian Constitution. Nobody pays any attention to that.

This is a misunderstanding of the word "Chaplin"

In terms of educational establishments (Universities, colleges, schools etc) the word Chaplin is not a mere Christian term. It refers in modern terms to merely any number of religious groups that are somehow represented offically. Included in my univeristy chaplin was amoungst others, the Christian union, Cathsoc, Muslim Prayer groups, Buddisit meditation meetings etc. Chaplins are just the office by which they are all covered

You know you're just like Georgia: The place the Brits sent their criminals.

is Australia is the name of a hot woman as well ?!? (and I was about to ask why we sent convicts to the near east:p )

and I think its a good idea students should have a place to go for there religious needs this is hardly having a state sponsored religion

? I think we do have some separation of church and state, although not as set in stone as in the USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#Australia

That's what I meant. The church and state aren't actually separated, but freedom of religion for the citizenry is guaranteed no matter the official church of the government.

It's a subtle difference, but an important one. Our government is (generally) secular in practice, but not in principle.

and I think its a good idea students should have a place to go for there religious needs this is hardly having a state sponsored religion

If the school chooses a Christian chaplain, where do the Muslims and Jews go for their religious needs? If they choose an Imam, where do the Christians go? If they choose any chaplain in place of a secular counselor, where do the atheists go?

They have churches to go to for their religious needs. That is the purpose of a church, it is NOT the purpose of a public school.

As I said, if there is some trauma and the students request a religious counselor be brought in to help them deal with it, okay. However, the government paying for permanent clerics on staff in public schools is, by definition, state-sponsored religion.

If the school chooses a Christian chaplain, where do the Muslims and Jews go for their religious needs? If they choose an Imam, where do the Christians go? If they choose any chaplain in place of a secular counselor, where do the atheists go?

wouldn't the Chaplin be for every religion with some very disturbing man talking to students about dying? and how would this get rid of the need for a councillor?

They have churches to go to for their religious needs. That is the purpose of a church, it is NOT the purpose of a public school.

they also have clinics yet we still have school nurses could it be that maybe its not convenient to have such things off site?

As I said, if there is some trauma and the students request a religious counselor be brought in to help them deal with it, okay. However, the government paying for permanent clerics on staff in public schools is, by definition, state-sponsored religion.

I do believe there is funds being put up to cover the cost of building work not paying for a religious man to have a religious chat to (and yet again how would having every religion represented be state sponsored religion?)

wouldn't the Chaplin be for every religion with some very disturbing man talking to students about dying? and how would this get rid of the need for a councillor?


The way it's being sold by the government here, the chaplain is not for the general religious well-being of the students (oh, how I chortle), but is being touted as a way to add a "necessary spiritual element" to their trauma/depression counseling (with various road deaths among young people recently being used to add momentum) that would otherwise be handled by a trained secular counselor. Whether or not it ends up that way or as just an on-site vehicle of proselytism like the chaplain at my high school was, I don't know.


they also have clinics yet we still have school nurses could it be that maybe its not convenient to have such things off site?

If a student has an immediate medical problem (which might be urgent) or an ongoing condition that needs treatment, it makes sense to have nurse on site to deal with these things.

If you're saying that students might have some emergency "faith crisis" that they need priestly help with RIGHT NOW, I'm going to laugh at you.

Medicine and religion aren't even nearly on the same level of importance and urgency.


I do believe there is funds being put up to cover the cost of building work not paying for a religious man to have a religious chat to

The programme will make $20,000 per school available to pay for a chaplain. I believe the implication is that these will go toward wages. I can't imagine what else they could be for. I really doubt any public school with be actually building a chapel or a shrine.

(and yet again how would having every religion represented be state sponsored religion?)

It won't be every religion represented. First of all, the funds will only go to chaplains from "mainstream religions", as defined by the government (which basically means Protestant and Catholic clergy, Muslim Imams and Jewish rabbis and no one else.) Secondly, the schools will be choosing which religion they want represented. These are not some kind of multifaith crackpots, these are sectarian clergy. And it's fine if you're talking about a priest in a Catholic school or a resident Imam at an Islamic school, but doing this in public schools which are likely to have students with different religious backgrounds (and no religious background) is unacceptable

I think it's a very good idea for the government to pay for a school counselor. I think it should most definitely be a secular one though. The government should not be paying for religious representation in our public schools. If students want religious counseling, they can go to their own church/mosque/temple. If it's in the case of some trauma occurring (eg: students being killed), then it's appropriate to have a chaplain present, but not on a permanent basis.

I can only repeat what I said before: My school had a Christian African woman as Chaplain.

She never approached anyone, she just organised charity events and other extracurricular activities. As far as I know, the only people who actually went to her with problems were already Christians.

So it wouldn't be the end of the world to get a religious chaplain into your school. But I most certainly don't know why I have to pay for it!

For the same reason we re-elected Bush - the alternative was worse.




Hey, the alternative was a heck of a lot worse for us Australians than it was for you.

I can only repeat what I said before: My school had a Christian African woman as Chaplain.

She never approached anyone, she just organised charity events and other extracurricular activities. As far as I know, the only people who actually went to her with problems were already Christians.

So it wouldn't be the end of the world to get a religious chaplain into your school. But I most certainly don't know why I have to pay for it!

Exactly.

Hey, the alternative was a heck of a lot worse for us Australians than it was for you.

You must be joking.. How can Liberal voters live with themselves?

You must be joking.. How can Liberal voters live with themselves?
By looking at what Mark Latham has done since?

The opposition in Australia is laughable. The only party one can actually feel okay about voting for are the Greens, and their policies will always make them a fringe party.

may be we need a coupd'etat by the arm forces here

You must be joking.. How can Liberal voters live with themselves?

John Howard may be an evil scumbag and a toad of a human being. But at least he's competant at being an evil scumbag and toad of a human being. Labour consists of a bunch of incompetants who have a policy consisting of "we promise the opposite of anything liberal promises". That may work for some things (Howard deserves the chair with those industrial relations laws), but it does not a political party make.

Honestly, next election I'm just finding the most obscure party possible and voting for it. Yes, even if it's the Satanist party. The first step to making democracy work is moving away from this biocracy we have going.

Compare this to America. I don't care how much damage the Democrats might have done, I would rather see Stalin in power (this is a major statement from my position) than Bush.

may be we need a coupd'etat by the arm forces here

Who would be in charge of that & what would it achieve? It's just not going to happen. Instead, vote Greens in your next local, state & federal elections.

Who would be in charge of that & what would it achieve? It's just not going to happen. Instead, vote Greens in your next local, state & federal elections.

i say the man who lead the troops in East Timor in 1999
may be they can fix same thing or may be not
and i dont think there is a green party left here

church and state should somewhat be seperate. one can have religious laws as state laws, but having a priest in every school is a waste of money.

church and state should somewhat be seperate. one can have religious laws as state laws, but having a priest in every school is a waste of money.

Pity we're kind of stuck with them.

In Ireland the vast majority of primary schools are owned by the Catholic Church and have priests and/or nuns on the school board of management.

Pity we're kind of stuck with them.

In Ireland the vast majority of primary schools are owned by the Catholic Church and have priests and/or nuns on the school board of management.

yeah true. i would like the change with only multi-denominational schools. i just dont see it necessary to promote one religion over the other at that age. also i dont see the point of praying, when one should be learning.

By looking at what Mark Latham has done since?

The opposition in Australia is laughable. The only party one can actually feel okay about voting for are the Greens, and their policies will always make them a fringe party.

'mmm, agreed.

i say the man who lead the troops in East Timor in 1999
may be they can fix same thing or may be not
and i dont think there is a green party left here

The Greens are in WA. http://wa.greens.org.au/

The Greens are in WA. http://wa.greens.org.au/

well there you go ,i guest we just dont hear much of them

Damn religious right. Must we do everything America does?
It could be worse.

You could have the Vatican inside your borders.

It could be worse.

You could have the Vatican inside your borders.

Interesting thought, what is Italy's stance on the separation of church & state?

well there you go ,i guest we just dont hear much of them

The Greens aren't major players in state politics in WA.

Still, I voted for them at the last state election.

The Greens aren't major players in state politics in WA.

Still, I voted for them at the last state election.

if they say no to DLS i would vote for them

First of all, there is no seperation of church and state in Australia. The head of our state by proxy (the Queen) happens to be the concurrent head of the anglican church.

That being said, there is significant pressure of late (only a recent thing as far as I know) for Australia to have a 'bill of rights'. I'm against the idea for two main reasons, both concerning America. Firstly, why in the fuck to we have to do everything the americans do? I know we are their bitch nation, and I have come to terms with that, but that does not mean we have to be like the US 'mini me'. Why can't we try to be the Robin to the USA's Batman? Second reason, look at the US. Just look at them. I don't want that shit here. A codefied bill of rights/constitution which isn't deliberately vague makes it easier for stupid people to understand. On top of this, such a concrete set of unnegotiable rights make the country extremely vulnerable to people re-interpreting the wordng of the said bill to take them out of context so as to forward thei agenda. Fuck that.

Also I just hate christians... and fat people. Curiously I am yet to meet a fat christian (the real christiany christians, I mean). I expect to arrive at bathurst correctional facility shortly after I do.

Interesting thought, what is Italy's stance on the separation of church & state?
Well they are in different countries, so that a start...

Put that one down on the right's wish list. It'd fit nicely next to the faith based initiative crap.

By looking at what Mark Latham has done since?

The opposition in Australia is laughable. The only party one can actually feel okay about voting for are the Greens, and their policies will always make them a fringe party.
You think? I reckon Bob Browne is a fucking psycho. Seriously that man is possessed or something. Maybe he feels it is expected of him as the leader of a fringe party. Plus their policies are actually quite backward. Heres how I see the political situation in Australia:

LIBERAL: Hey, we'll run this show ok. You'll probably get richer. Uh... you also may lose some essential liberties, international respect, workers rights, and your soul. However you will gain lots of international private debt, religious fatwas, and this free government edition bible :).
LABOUR: ................what?...-Oh! Is it our turn already?! Shit! What do we say?! Uhhm.. Yeah. So. What they said, unless you don't like what they said, in which case what they didn't say ;). That was smooth, that'll get the suckers to- is this thing still on?.... I'm so fat and verbose *cries*
GREENS: The Proletariat must rise up and end the oppression of the common man by the Bourgoise! Only b-.. (ahem) Uh, save the trees.
SOCIALIST ALLIANCE: *Looks at greens* Always stealing our sunshine... Com'on fellas lets go have some milkshakes or something.
DEMOCRATS: Feeling disillusioned with the pointlessness of the Liberal/Labour toing and froing? Looking for a reputable party with reasonable policies and a level headed approach? Consider yourself neither left nor right? Then you should have voted for us 20 years ago. *cries*
NATIONALS: Untaschlieben das untermenchen judenblitzen stinkenburger steinerfritz! Unt TOTAL VAR! (Sorry Neu, if you give me some real german I'll edit ;))
ONE NATION: *Looks at Nationals* We really have nothing against them without Pauline.
PAULINE HANSON: Oh no, after my stint in racist jail *cough* I love coo-aboriginals*cough* I have gone into TV *does a dance* Did I mention how much I love aboriginals these days?

So who do you vote for? You wanna get rid of Johnny, but you don't want a fat PM, and every other party seems to be there for novelties sake.

You think? I reckon Bob Browne is a fucking psycho. Seriously that man is possessed or something. Maybe he feels it is expected of him as the leader of a fringe party. Plus their policies are actually quite backward. Heres how I see the political situation in Australia:

LIBERAL: Hey, we'll run this show ok. You'll probably get richer. Uh... you also may lose some essential liberties, international respect, workers rights, and your soul. However you will gain lots of international private debt, religious fatwas, and this free government edition bible :).
LABOUR: ................what?...-Oh! Is it our turn already?! Shit! What do we say?! Uhhm.. Yeah. So. What they said, unless you don't like what they said, in which case what they didn't say ;). That was smooth, that'll get the suckers to- is this thing still on?.... I'm so fat and verbose *cries*
GREENS: The Proletariat must rise up and end the oppression of the common man by the Bourgoise! Only b-.. (ahem) Uh, save the trees.
SOCIALIST ALLIANCE: *Looks at greens* Always stealing our sunshine... Com'on fellas lets go have some milkshakes or something.
DEMOCRATS: Feeling disillusioned with the pointlessness of the Liberal/Labour toing and froing? Looking for a reputable party with reasonable policies and a level headed approach? Consider yourself neither left nor right? Then you should have voted for us 20 years ago. *cries*
NATIONALS: Untaschlieben das untermenchen judenblitzen stinkenburger steinerfritz! Unt TOTAL VAR! (Sorry Neu, if you give me some real german I'll edit ;))
ONE NATION: *Looks at Nationals* We really have nothing against them without Pauline.
PAULINE HANSON: Oh no, after my stint in racist jail *cough* I love coo-aboriginals*cough* I have gone into TV *does a dance* Did I mention how much I love aboriginals these days?

So who do you vote for? You wanna get rid of Johnny, but you don't want a fat PM, and every other party seems to be there for novelties sake.

we screwed

But the militaries of every Anglo Nation have paid Chaplians on staff, in Canada, we have several brands of Protestant, Catholic, and Muslim Chaplians. I am sure that you have a similar situation in the armed forces there, isn't that state sponsored religion?

WWJD
Amen.

First of all, there is no seperation of church and state in Australia. The head of our state by proxy (the Queen) happens to be the concurrent head of the anglican church.

That's not entirely true. The Queen is not the head of the Anglican Church of Australia. We've had our own head since 1962. Currently, it's Phillip Aspinall.

So separation of church and state is possible in Australia. Johnny just seems to prefer theocracy to democracy.

But the militaries of every Anglo Nation have paid Chaplians on staff, in Canada, we have several brands of Protestant, Catholic, and Muslim Chaplians. I am sure that you have a similar situation in the armed forces there, isn't that state sponsored religion?

WWJD
Amen.
Soldiers don't work from 8 to 3 and often don't have access to the outside for long periods of time. I don't think schoolchildren are as much as risk of getting killed, either...

Well they are in different countries, so that a start...
Yes, I should have been more specific. I was curious about what sort of influence the Vatican had on Italy, being so closely tied, both historically & geographically.

Yes, I should have been more specific. I was curious about what sort of influence the Vatican had on Italy, being so closely tied, both historically & geographically.
Yeah I know, I was just being a whore. That being said I am mezzo-Italiano and from what little I understand, whilst there is little to no influence officially by the catholic church in Italian politics, if a party does not have the 'blessing of the church' it is screwed. Or rather, the religious vote in Italy is about a crucial as the one in portugal.

Yeah I know, I was just being a whore. That being said I am mezzo-Italiano and from what little I understand, whilst there is little to no influence officially by the catholic church in Italian politics, if a party does not have the 'blessing of the church' it is screwed. Or rather, the religious vote in Italy is about a crucial as the one in portugal.

Bastard! ;) :p

Interesting thought, what is Italy's stance on the separation of church & state?
Officialy, they say it's separated. Reality is different.

Part of our taxes go to the church. Churches do not pay many taxes. In school they teach catholic religion - it's not mandatory but it's "default on". Every classroom, and many other public rooms of offices or whatever, have a christ on a wall.

We have to groups of parties, and both groups include some catholic party.

It could be far worse, but it could be far better.